Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site F131AY205AR
St. Francis - Loamy Braided Interfluve Forest
Last updated: 6/10/2025
Accessed: 08/29/2026
-
Search
Major Land Resource Area or ecological site by name and/or ID.
PreviousSectionsNextGeneral information
Provisional. A provisional ecological site description has undergone quality control and quality assurance review. It contains a working state and transition model and enough information to identify the ecological site.
MLRA notes
Major Land Resource Area (MLRA): 131A–Southern Mississippi River Alluvium
The Southern Mississippi River Alluvium (MLRA 131A) is the largest of 4 MLRAs within Land Resource Region O, the Mississippi Delta Cotton and Feed Grains Region. It occurs in portions of 7 states including Louisiana (32 percent), Arkansas (26 percent), Mississippi (26 percent), Missouri (12 percent), Tennessee (3 percent), Kentucky (1 percent), and Illinois (less than 1 percent). The MLRA is comprised of 29,555 square miles and extends roughly 650 miles from an area near Cape Girardeau, Missouri in the north to the MLRA’s transition to the Gulf Coast Marsh (MLRA 151) in the south. Average elevations range from 330 feet in the north to sea level in the southern part of the area. For much of the north-south distance, the MLRA is bounded to the east by an abrupt rise in elevation of loess-capped bluffs and hills, the Southern Mississippi Valley Loess (MLRA 134). West of the Mississippi River, the boundary is less distinct except to the northwest where the MLRA abuts the Ozark Plateaus and Ouachita province (MLRAs 116A, 117, and 118A). South of the Ozark and Ouachita escarpment, the MLRA adjoins the Southern Mississippi River Terraces (MLRA 131D), which includes the fabled Grand Prairie and merges with the valleys of the Arkansas and Ouachita rivers (MLRA 131B) and the Red River (MLRA 131C). Occurring within or bordering the Southern Mississippi River Alluvium are three separate loess-capped, upland remnants: Crowley’s Ridge, Macon Ridge, and Lafayette Loess Plain, which are western units of MLRA 134 (USDA-NRCS, 2006a).
MLRA 131A is characterized by landscapes that were created and influenced by the current and earlier paths of the Mississippi River and its tributaries. Waters transporting the materials that formed the area originate from as far west as the east slope of the Continental Divide to the western edge of the Appalachian Divide in the east. This comprises a drainage basin of roughly 1,245,000 square miles and includes all or parts of thirty-one U.S. states and two Canadian provinces (Elliott, 1932). The drainage basin of the Mississippi River roughly resembles a funnel, which has its spout at the Gulf of America. Waters from as far east as New York and as far west as Montana contribute to flows in the lower extent of the river (USACE, 2017). The soils of these alluvial landscapes are very deep, dominantly poorly and somewhat poorly drained, and have textures that are mostly loamy or clayey. Principal soil orders are Alfisols, Vertisols, Inceptisols, and Entisols (USDA-NRCS, 2006a).
The fluvial processes that shaped the area were highly dynamic, diverse, and complex. During the Pleistocene epoch, multiple continental glacial-interglacial cycles resulted in extreme fluctuations in river discharge and sediment loads. A braided river regime characterized the fluvial dynamics of the Mississippi River through much of the last glacial cycle (Autin et al., 1991; Rittenhour et al., 2007). Rapid aggradation of glacial outwash led to the development of prominent valley train features over a large portion of the area (Autin et al., 1991; Saucier, 1994; Aslan and Autin, 1999; Blum et al., 2000; Rittenour et al., 2007). A changing climate, meltwater withdrawal, and sea-level change induced a transition from a braided river regime to a predominantly single-channeled, laterally migrating river system during the Holocene epoch (Rittenhour et al., 2007; Shen et al., 2012) – characteristics that continue today. Fluvial dynamics of the migrating river resulted in the development of broad meander belts, backswamp environments, and extensive deltaic complexes (Saucier, 1994; Klimas et al., 2011a).
Tremendous expanses of bottomland hardwood forests once covered much of the area. Today, the land base is largely in agriculture production, and soybeans, cotton, corn, and rice are the principal crops with sugarcane rising in importance in the southernmost portion of the MLRA (USDA-NRCS, 2022).
Due to its size and biophysical variability, the technical team advised subdividing the MLRA into six subregions: Western Lowlands, St. Francis Basin, Yazoo Basin, Tensas Basin, Delta Plain, and Batture.LRU notes
There are no agency-approved and established Land Resource Units (LRUs) for MLRA 131A. However, the characteristics of each of the six subregions in this MLRA warrant noting and are presented here for each associated ecological site. This provisional ecological site is mapped within the St. Francis Basin.
The St. Francis Basin is geographically positioned in northeastern Arkansas and southeastern Missouri where it, in addition to the Batture and Western Lowlands, form the northern terminus of MLRA 131A. For convenience and ease of administering the Ecological Site Inventory, small portions of the MLRA occurring east of the Mississippi River in extreme western Tennessee and Kentucky are collectively grouped with the basin’s extent in Arkansas and Missouri. The following characterization includes the combined area.
The MLRA boundary of the basin extends some 190 miles (north to south) from Cape Girardeau, Missouri to the vicinity of Helena, Arkansas. For much of its north-south distance, its width (east to west) is approximately 40 miles but narrows considerably south of Memphis, TN. The basin is bounded to the west by Crowley’s Ridge and to the east by the most recent meander belt of the Mississippi River. Elevations range from about 340 feet in the north to around 175 feet in the south (Saucier, 1994). St. Francis Basin includes portions of: Lee, St. Francis, Crittendon, Cross, Poinsett, and Mississippi counties of Arkansas; Pemiscot, Dunkin, New Madrid, and Mississippi counties of Missouri; Lake, Dyer, and Lauderdale counties of Tennessee. Major towns include: West Memphis, Marked Tree, Trumann, Blytheville, Paragould, Piggott, and Black Oak, Arkansas; Caruthersville, Hayti, Portageville, Kennett, Charleston, Sikeston, and Cape Girardeau, Missouri; and Tiptonville, Tennessee. Major highways include: Interstate 55, Interstate 40, U.S. Highway 61, U.S. Highway 63, U.S. Highway 64, U.S. Highway 78, and TN Highway 103.
The geomorphology of the basin is exceedingly complex – manifestations of incredible hydrogeologic and geologic forces. The most significant of these forces for the Mississippi River Valley was serving as a sluiceway through which huge quantities of glacial meltwater and outwash were funneled during multiple continental glaciations. The northwestern two thirds of the basin is mainly comprised of Late Pleistocene (ca. 11,700 to 129,000 years B.P.; chronology after Head, 2019) glacial outwash materials. Large landscapes or “basin subareas” were created or influenced by tremendous amounts of outwash material that, episodically, were released during catastrophic outburst floods of enormous magnitude (Saucier, 1994). Fluvial dynamics of these events resulted in braided river regimes of both the Mississippi and Ohio rivers. Examples of large landscapes that were shaped and reshaped by these fluvial processes and episodes include Sikeston Ridge, Charleston Fan, Morehouse Lowland, and Malden Plain (Stevens and Krusekopf, 2020). Major geomorphic features created in the wake of these forces include prominent sandy ridges; broad, braided-stream terraces (valley trains) at varying elevations or levels; and eolian environments of sand dune fields east of Sikeston Ridge (Saucier, 1994).
A changing climate, meltwater withdrawal, and sea-level change induced a transition from a braided river regime to a predominantly single-channeled, laterally migrating river system during the Holocene epoch (ca. 11,700 years B.P. to present; epoch chronology after Head, 2019) (Rittenour et al., 2007; Shen et al., 2012). Landscapes across the southeastern third of the St. Francis Basin are mainly comprised of former paths of the Mississippi River and its associated alluvial environment of sinuous meander belts. Major landforms comprising the meander belt environment include natural levees, point bar deposits (meander scrolls) and abandoned channels (oxbow lakes) and courses. The higher elevations of natural levees and point bars form an alluvial ridge, which often directs local drainage and floodwaters to the intervening flood basins or backswamps (Saucier, 1994).
In addition to hydrologic influences, the basin’s landscapes are subject to geologic forces. In 1811-1812, four of the largest earthquakes to hit eastern North America occurred in an area that encompassed extreme northeastern Arkansas, southeastern Missouri, and northwestern Tennessee. This area is known as the New Madrid Seismic Zone, which is named after a small settlement near the epicenter of one of the earthquakes (Saucier, 1994). Reports of the New Madrid earthquakes included widespread bank caving, reversal of river flow, landslides, earth waves, forest destruction, land uplifts, and land sinking. A few of the notable land areas or features attributed to or influenced by the seismic events include the St. Francis Sunken Lands, Tiptonville Dome, Ridgely Ridge, Reelfoot Lake, and massive landslides occurring along the adjoining Loess Bluffs of MLRA 134 (Fuller, 1912; Saucier, 1994). Perhaps the most dramatic geomorphic effects were the land fissuring and sand blows resulting from liquefaction (Saucier, 1994). According to Castilla and Audemard (2007), these are “…the largest ever-reported isolated sand blows.” Saucier (1994) emphasized that there are millions of liquefaction features from the earthquakes that are distributed over a 4,000 square mile area.
The movement of water through the basin is influenced by the complex sequence of remnant braided outwash channels, overflow channels, distributaries, and former channels and courses of the Mississippi River. Many of these features convey smaller modern streams within them. Principal streams of the basin are its namesake, the St. Francis River in addition to Little River, Tyronza River, and Pemiscot Bayou. Historically, large floods on the Mississippi River and in the St. Francis tributary system and greater basin led to frequent flooding, inundating landscapes of low relief for very long durations (Moore, 1972). To lessen the severity of flooding, the St. Francis Basin underwent a coordinated and comprehensive flood control and drainage effort. Extensive modification of the basin’s natural hydrology included hundreds of miles of constructed levees along the mainstem of the Mississippi River and basin tributaries; channel modifications on many streams; constructed floodways; water control structures; land leveled areas; and an extensive network of surface drainage systems (Klimas et al., 2013). The extensive modifications to the basin’s hydrology coupled with increased access set the stage for broadscale conversion of former forestland to a variety of land uses with agriculture production being dominant.
All ecological sites in the St. Francis Basin are bounded by the extensive constructed levee system along the Mississippi River. The constructed levee occurs on both sides (i.e., east and west) of the active river channel. The areas protected by levees east of the Mississippi River include portions of Lake, Obion, Dyer, and northern Lauderdale counties in Tennessee and the western extent of Fulton County, Kentucky. (Soils mapped in southern Illinois’s portion of MLRA 131A mostly have a mesic soil temperature regime and do not correlate to this ecological site.) All lands between the river channel and the constructed levee (or Loess Hills where levees are absent) are referred to as the Batture, and that subregion encapsulates its own complement of ecological sites due to significantly different hydrologic regimes (Smith and Klimas, 2002).Classification relationships
All or portions of the geographic range of this site fall within several ecological/land classifications including:
- NRCS Major Land Resource Area (MLRA) 131A-Southern Mississippi River Alluvium (USDA-NRCS, 2006a)
- National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units: 234 Lower Mississippi Riverine Forest Province; 234D White and Black River Alluvial Plains Section; 234Da North Mississippi River Alluvial Plain Subsection (Cleland et al., 2007)
- Environmental Protection Agency Level III Ecoregion: 8.5.2 Mississippi Alluvial Plain, 73; Level IV Ecoregion: Northern Pleistocene Valley Trains, 73b; St. Francis Lowlands, 73c (Griffith et al., 1998; Chapman et al., 2002; Woods et al., 2002; Woods et al., 2004; Wiken et al., 2011)
- The following is the HGM Subclass, geomorphic setting, and PNV association that best correlates to this site in the St. Francis Basin (developed by Klimas et al., 2013): F7, Poorly drained undulating topography on Pleistocene outwash terraces, Water Oak - Cow Oak - Cherrybark Oak (dominant species on interfluves, drier subset of Willow Oak - Water Oak)Ecological site concept
The Loamy Braided Interfluve Forest occurs on the higher interfluves among the remnant glacial outwash channels on Late Pleistocene valley train terraces. These depositional features consist of a series of disjunct mounds and low, elongated ridges that are positioned beside and within the highly braided network of remnant glacial outwash channels. Slopes associated with the higher positions of this site generally range from 0 to 8 percent. Soils of the site are very deep, moderately well to well drained that formed in loamy alluvium. A key characteristic of these soils is the prominent profile development as determined by distinct argillic (clay) accumulations in the subsoil (B horizon). Soil reactions generally range from very strongly acid to moderately acid. The higher, drier soils of this group are quite productive and support a broad range of species that may include water oak (Quercus nigra), swamp chestnut oak (Q. michauxii), cherrybark oak (Q. pagoda), Shumard’s oak (Q. shumardii), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), pecan (Carya illinoinensis), bitternut hickory (C. cordiformis), American elm (Ulmus americana), and sugarberry (Celtis laevigata).
The species listed in Table 1 were derived from literature reviews and conversations with technical specialists. One or more of the species listed may not be dominant or present at a given location, and opinions may differ as to the dominant or representative species of this ecological site. Extreme caution should be exercised when developing or inferring conservation decisions, actions, or determinations based on Table 1, alone. A more complete listing of species anticipated on this site, including species targeted for their conservation value, can be found in the Ecological Dynamics section of this report.Associated sites
F131AY204AR St. Francis - Braid Bar Woodland
This site is representative of remnant sandy braid bars and is the highest feature on Late Pleistocene valley train terraces. It adjoins the slightly lower moderately well to well drained interfluves of F131AY205AR.
F131AY206AR St. Francis - Wet Braided Interfluve Forest
This site consists of poorly to somewhat poorly drained interfluves on Late Pleistocene valley train terraces. It adjoins the slightly higher moderately well to well drained interfluves of F131AY205AR.
F131AY207AR St. Francis - Braided Channel Forest
The poorly drained soils of this site occur within the remnant braided outwash channels on Late Pleistocene valley train terraces. It adjoins the higher and better drained interfluves of F131AY205AR in a few local instances.
Similar sites
F131AY313MS Yazoo – Pleistocene Valley Train Braid Bar Woodland
This site developed under similar conditions, has similar drainage characteristics, and occurs on similar geomorphic features as site F131AY205AR. The principal difference is that F131AY313MS occurs in the Yazoo Basin of Mississippi.
F131AY209AR St. Francis - Old Loamy Natural Levee and Meander Scroll Forest
This site primarily occurs on abandoned natural levees and meander scroll ridges of former paths of the Mississippi River. Many of the same soil series of F131AY209AR have been delineated on the braided interfluves of F131AY205AR.
F131AY109AR Western Lowlands - Old Loamy Natural Levee and Braided Interfluve Forest
This site developed under similar conditions, has similar soils and drainage characteristics, and occurs on similar geomorphic features as site F131AY205AR. The principal difference is that F131AY109AR occurs in the Western Lowlands.
Figure 1. Distribution of F131AY205AR.
Table 2. Dominant plant species
Tree (1) Quercus pagoda
(2) Quercus michauxiiShrub (1) Euonymus atropurpureus
Herbaceous (1) Carex
Physiographic features
This ecological site occupies the higher elevations of braided interfluves on Late Pleistocene valley train (braided stream terrace) landscapes. It is intermediate in elevation between the higher sandy braid bars (F131AY204AR) and the lower and wetter braided interfluves (F131AY206AR). The characteristic surface feature of this site consists of remnant depositional rises that developed when vast volumes of coarse-grained glacial outwash were transported and deposited by an extensive network of braided river channels (Saucier, 1994). Today, these depositional features consist of a series of disjunct rises and low, elongated ridges that are positioned beside and among (i.e., interfluves) the network of remnant, glacial outwash channels (F131AY207AR).
Of note, the loamy soils of this site have been mapped on other geomorphic features such as old natural levees and meander scrolls of the Mississippi River and its tributaries (F131AY209AR).
Figure 1. Block diagram illustrating the Pleistocene terraces in association with the St. Francis River. Dubbs soils are representative of the loamy interfluves (this site).
Table 3. Representative physiographic features
Landforms (1) Alluvial plain remnant > Valley train > Bar
Runoff class Negligible to medium Flooding duration Brief (2 to 7 days) Flooding frequency None to frequent Ponding frequency None Elevation 215 – 340 ft Slope 0 – 3 % Water table depth 29 – 36 in Aspect Aspect is not a significant factor Table 4. Representative physiographic features (actual ranges)
Runoff class Not specified Flooding duration Not specified Flooding frequency Not specified Ponding frequency Not specified Elevation 0 ft Slope 0 – 8 % Water table depth 0 in Climatic features
Climate of the St. Francis Basin is classified as Humid Subtropical (Koppen System), which is typified by mostly cool to mild winters; long, hot and humid summers; and no routinely recurring wet or dry season (Klimas et al., 2011b). The average annual air temperature from 1980 through 2010 was 60 degrees F and the mean annual precipitation for the same period was 49 inches.
In the warmer season (and throughout much of the year), winds from the south convey moisture from the Gulf of America leading to humid, semitropical conditions that are favorable for convective thunderstorms. These storms produce a significant proportion of the area’s annual precipitation and are at times accompanied by locally destructive winds. A potential hazard during late summer through early fall is the tropical cyclone. While most impacts from hurricanes and tropical storms are confined along the coastal zone, heavy rainfall, severe flooding, and high winds can occur well into the basin when such systems pass through the area. To the extreme, the region is susceptible to the effects of a strong Bermuda High during the summer, which can cause devastating drought conditions for weeks and even months in some years. Typically, August and September are the driest months of the year with an average monthly low at or less than 2.8 inches.
In the colder season, the area’s weather is dominated by the positions of the Polar and Subtropical Jet Streams, both of which exert strong control over the passages of cold and warm fronts. These fronts alternately bring cold continental air and warm tropical air with periods of varying length. Particularly strong cold fronts can produce large and sudden drops in air temperature; however, cold spells seldom last over a week. The coldest month of the year is typically January with an average monthly low and high of 24 and 47 degrees, respectively. The frost-free period from 1980 to 2010 averaged 181 days basin-wide and ranged from 162 days in the northernmost extent to 193 days in the south. Likewise, the freeze-free period averaged 215 days and ranged from 192 days in the north to 223 days in the southern part of the basin.
Snow and/or sleet falls in the area in most years with the greatest frequency and accumulations occurring in the northern extent. Winter precipitation sometimes occurs as freezing rain and damaging ice storms hit some portion of the basin on occasion. However, these wintry events are generally the exception; they are typically brief and do not persist for very long. Rain is the characteristic form of winter precipitation, and the period of greatest rainfall generally occurs from November through July with April and May being the months of highest averages.Table 5 Representative climatic features
Frost-free period (characteristic range) 180-190 days Freeze-free period (characteristic range) 210-220 days Precipitation total (characteristic range) 50-50 in Frost-free period (actual range) 170-190 days Freeze-free period (actual range) 200-220 days Precipitation total (actual range) 50-50 in Frost-free period (average) 180 days Freeze-free period (average) 220 days Precipitation total (average) 50 in Characteristic rangeActual rangeBarLineFigure 2. Monthly precipitation range
Characteristic rangeActual rangeBarLineFigure 3. Monthly minimum temperature range
Characteristic rangeActual rangeBarLineFigure 4. Monthly maximum temperature range
BarLineFigure 5. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature
Figure 6. Annual precipitation pattern
Figure 7 Annual average temperature pattern
Climate stations used
-
(1) ADVANCE 1 S [USW00093825], Advance, MO
-
(2) CHARLESTON [USC00231540], Charleston, MO
-
(3) SIKESTON PWR STN [USC00237772], Sikeston, MO
-
(4) NEW MADRID [USC00236045], Hickman, MO
-
(5) MALDEN MUNI AP [USC00235207], Malden, MO
-
(6) PORTAGEVILLE [USC00236804], Portageville, MO
-
(7) CARUTHERSVILLE [USC00231364], Caruthersville, MO
-
(8) KENNETT RADIO KBOA [USC00234417], Kennett, MO
-
(9) PARAGOULD 1S [USC00035563], Paragould, AR
-
(10) BLYTHEVILLE MUNI AP [USW00053869], Blytheville, AR
-
(11) KEISER [USC00033821], Keiser, AR
-
(12) WEST MEMPHIS MUNI AP [USW00053959], Marion, AR
">Influencing water features
This site occurs on higher interfluves among remnant glacial outwash channels on Late Pleistocene valley trains. Today, this site occurs on the protected side of several extensive levee systems and does not receive overland flooding on the same scale that it may have experienced prior to levee construction. The location or position of this site is high enough in elevation that it does not flood on a frequent or predictable basis. In general, this site does not support wetland species and does not qualify as supporting hydric conditions or meeting “wetland determination” criteria.
Soil features
Please note that the soils listed in this section of the description may not be all inclusive. There may be additional soils that fit the site’s concepts. Additionally, the soils that provisionally form the concepts of this site may occur elsewhere, either within or outside of the MLRA and may or “may not” have the same geomorphic characteristics or support similar vegetation. Some soil map units and soil series included in this “provisional” ecological site were used as a “best fit” for a particular soil-landform catena during a specific era of soil mapping, regardless of the origin of parent material or the location of MLRA boundaries. Therefore, the listed soils may not be typical for MLRA 131A or a specific location, and the associated soil map units may warrant further investigation in a joint ecological site inventory-soil survey project. When utilizing this provisional description, the user is encouraged to verify that the area of interest meets the appropriate ecological site concepts by reviewing the soils, landform, vegetation, and physical location. If the site concepts do not match the attributes of the area of interest, please review the Similar or Associated Sites listed in this description to determine if another site may be a better fit for your area of interest.
This site is characterized by very deep, well drained and moderately well drained soils that formed in silty and loamy alluvium. A key characteristic of these soils is the prominent profile development as determined by distinct argillic (clay) accumulations in the subsoil (Bt horizon). Slopes associated with the higher positions of this site range from 0 to 8 percent. Soils provisionally correlated to this site include the Askew, Dubbs, and Tiptonville series.
The Askew (fine-silty, mixed, active, thermic Aquic Hapludalfs) series consists of moderately well drained, moderately permeable soils that formed in loamy alluvium. Solum thickness ranges from 40 to 60 inches. Depth to a lithologic discontinuity consisting of sandier or coarser material, where present, is more than 30 inches (Soil Survey Staff). In undrained conditions, a perched water table at a depth of 2 to 3 feet may occur during winter to early spring (USDA-NRCS, 2006b). Reactions range from strongly acid to slightly acid in the upper layers and transitional horizons and very strongly acid through neutral in the subsoil and substratum. Slopes range from 0 to 8 percent. Askew soils are mapped on Late Pleistocene terraces and former or abandoned meander belts of the Mississippi River and its tributaries.
The dominant soils of the site are the Dubbs (fine-silty, mixed, active, thermic Typic Hapludalfs) series. They consist of well drained, moderately permeable soils that formed in loamy alluvium. These productive soils have a base saturation (by sum of cations) that ranges from 65 to 80 percent at depths of 50 inches below the upper boundary of the B horizon. Dubbs soils are generally very low in organic matter, typically less than 1 percent. Reaction ranges from very strongly acid to moderately acid. Slopes range from 0 to 8 percent.
The Tiptonville (fine-silty, mixed, superactive, thermic Oxyaquic Argiudolls) series consists of moderately well drained soils that formed in silty alluvium. These moderately permeable soils have a solum thickness that ranges from 35 to 65 inches and a mollic epipedon that ranges from 10 to 20 inches. Reaction in the A and C horizon is moderately acid to neutral, and the B horizon is strongly acid to slightly acid. Slopes generally range from 0 to 3 percent (Soil Survey Staff).
Additional soils may be added to this site as new and updated information suggest their inclusion is warranted. Conversely, some provisional soil components may be transferred to a different site during subsequent phases of ecological site development.
Figure 8. Profile of the Dubbs series; OSD Typical Pedon, Tallahatchie Co., MS.
Table 6. Representative soil features
Parent material (1) Alluvium
Surface texture (1) Fine sandy loam
(2) Silt loam
(3) Very fine sandy loam
Drainage class Moderately well drained to well drained Permeability class Moderate to moderately rapid Soil depth 80 in Surface fragment cover <=3" Not specified Surface fragment cover >3" Not specified Available water capacity
(Depth not specified)6.7 – 8.3 in Calcium carbonate equivalent
(Depth not specified)Not specified Electrical conductivity
(Depth not specified)0 – 1 mmhos/cm Sodium adsorption ratio
(Depth not specified)Not specified Soil reaction (1:1 water)
(Depth not specified)5.3 – 5.9 Subsurface fragment volume <=3"
(40in)Not specified Subsurface fragment volume >3"
(40in)Not specified Ecological dynamics
Historically, this ecological site was part of a vast forested landscape with processes and functions directly connected to the highly dynamic nature of the Mississippi River (Gardiner and Oliver, 2005). Widespread changes to the landscape occurred long before any intensive studies of the historic natural communities were conducted. Accordingly, reference conditions of this ecological site are still under review. Although knowledge and interpretation of reference conditions are currently incomplete, observations and forest research over the past century have provided information on species presence, suitability, and productivity of important forest resources on some soils of this site. Their presence, management, and sustainability form the basis of the “perceived” reference state for the site.
Putnam and Bull (1932), and later Putnam (1951), characterized their “white oaks – red oaks – other hardwoods” cover type as most commonly occurring on high loamy ridges of second bottoms and old terraces. Many of the tree species listed in that cover type were later associated in manuscripts and other documents (e.g., USDA-SCS, 1959; USDA-SCS, 1968) as trees that commonly grow on or are adapted to the soils of this site. Important or key species comprising the type include swamp chestnut oak, white oak (Quercus alba), cherrybark oak, Shumard’s oak, southern red oak (Q. falcata), white ash (Fraxinus americana), hickory, blackgum, and winged elm (Putnam, 1951). Additional forest associates that are important components in some locations include sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), water oak, willow oak (Q. phellos), and American elm (Ulmus americana) (Eyre, 1980; USDA-SCS, 1968). Putnam (1951) added that this association produces some of the highest valued species and products among the southern bottomland forest types.
Putnam’s white oaks – red oaks – other hardwoods type was later absorbed into more broadly accepted forest types such as the swamp chestnut oak – cherrybark oak type (Society of American Foresters, SAF, Type No. 91; Eyre, 1980) or simply renamed the red oak – white oak – mixed species association (see Meadows and Stanturf, 1997). The diversity of tree species and other community associates are reportedly high for this system (NatureServe, 2020). Meadows and Stanturf (1997) regards this forest association as a late sere in the succession of southern bottomland forests, whereas others consider it a climax community (e.g., Eyre, 1980; Hodges, 1997).
The forest type predicted for this site was independently corroborated by colleagues in Missouri during early ecological site efforts in that state. They described this productive site as supporting a cherrybark oak – swamp chestnut oak association (see Community 1.1). Additional components observed included Shumard’s oak, bitternut hickory, and American elm. The understory was characterized as being “better developed” than adjoining wetter areas with a ground layer that supported a dense and diverse covering of herbaceous species, particularly sedges.
It is hypothesized that the higher elevations of this site occasionally flooded, perhaps once every 5 to 10 years with most surface water resulting from precipitation and sheet flow across the landscape (Doug Wallace, personal communication). This site is in association with wetter, lower elevation sites including remnant outwash channels. Juxtaposed to the wetter positions, the better drained, elevated position of this site create an incredibly rich medium for plant growth and production.
Predicting or anticipating a precise forest association (e.g., the perceived reference community) to occur in every location of this site is unlikely given the productivity of the soils coupled with differing ecological sites occurring in association. Klimas et al. (2013) warned that species composition of upland forests on Pleistocene terraces can vary widely depending on local soils and drainage conditions. Components and/or variants of other forest types such as the sweetgum – red oaks and the elm – ash – sugarberry associations (see Meadows and Stanturf, 1997 for brief descriptions) may converge on this site forming complex species patterns (Hodges, 1995). Such complexities may also be due to former land use histories in addition to contrasting soil-site environments occurring in proximity.
Overall, forest cover on this site is minor compared to other uses. Most areas have been cleared and are used extensively for row crop production. Some areas have been land leveled with soil surface cuts of up to 3 feet to meet irrigation needs. A secondary use on this site is pasturage.
Following this narrative, a “provisional” state and transition model is provided that includes the “perceived” reference state and several alternative (or altered) vegetation states that have been observed and/or projected for this ecological site. This model is based on limited inventories, literature, expert knowledge, and interpretations. Plant communities may differ from one location to the next depending on the severity of local land use activities and rates of deposition. Depending on objectives, the reference plant community may not necessarily be the management goal.
The environmental and biological characteristics of this site are complex and dynamic. As such, the following diagram suggests pathways that the vegetation on this site might take, given that the modal concepts of climate and soils are met within an area of interest. Specific locations with unique soils and disturbance histories may have alternate pathways that are not represented in the model. This information is intended to show the possibilities within a given set of circumstances and represents the initial steps toward developing a defensible description and model. The model and associated information are subject to change as knowledge increases and new information is garnered. This is an iterative process. Most importantly, local and/or state professional guidance should always be sought before pursuing a treatment scenario.State and transition model
More interactive model formats are also available. View Interactive Models
Click on state and transition labels to scroll to the respective textEcosystem states
States 1, 5 and 2 (additional transitions)
States 3 and 7 (additional transitions)
T1A - Manipulate composition and manage for production (Community 2.1); Heavy timber cutting or repeated partial harvests with no management (Community 2.2) T1B - Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); preparation for cultivation T1C - Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); seedbed preparation; establishment of desired forage; manage for grazing T2A - Reestablish missing species; control exotics (mechanical/chemical); timber stand improvement; natural stand dynamics T2B - Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); preparation for cultivation T2C - Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); seedbed preparation; establishment of desired forage; manage for grazing T3A - Precision land leveling T3B - Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); seedbed preparation; establishment of desired forage; manage for grazing T3C - Natural succession (Community 6.1) or prepare area (e.g., plow pan breakup, fertilizing, etc.) and plant tree species appropriate for site (Afforestation - Community 6.2) T3D - Establish select native species suitable for site; prepare for planting (herbicide and/or mechanical) T5A - Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); preparation for cultivation T5B - Natural succession (Community 6.1) or prepare area (e.g., plow pan breakup, fertilizing, etc.) for planting tree species appropriate for site (Afforestation - Community 6.2) T5C - Establish select native species suitable for site and prepare area for planting (herbicide and/or mechanical). T6A - Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); preparation for cultivation T6B - Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); seedbed preparation; establishment of desired forage; manage for grazing T7A - Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); preparation for cultivation T7B - Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); seedbed preparation; establishment of desired forage; manage for grazing T7C - Natural succession (Community 6.1) or prepare area (e.g., plow pan breakup, fertilizing, etc.) for planting tree species appropriate for site (Afforestation - Community 6.2). State 1 submodel, plant communities
State 2 submodel, plant communities
2.1A - Cessation of management followed by heavy cutting or repeated partial harvests 2.2A - Silvicultural treatments: removal of undesirable species; re-establish species favored in management; timber stand improvement; establish advance regeneration State 3 submodel, plant communities
3.1A - Soil disturbance (tillage); reduction of soil health. 3.1B - Conventional tillage, seeding, and fertility management for crops. 3.2A - No-till, cover crops, reduced till-soil health improvements. 3.2B - Conventional tillage, seeding, and fertility management for crops. 3.3A - Reduced till, no-till, and cover crops with soil health improvements as a goal. State 4 submodel, plant communities
State 5 submodel, plant communities
5.1A - Seeding and/or management for desired species composition. 5.1B - Species management without overseeding. 5.2A - Seeding, fertilizing, management/removal of undesirable species. 5.2B - Species management without overseeding 5.3A - Seeding, fertilizing, management/removal of undesirable species. 5.3B - Seeding and/or management for desired species composition. 5.3C - Lack of disturbance; no (infrequent) mowing, herbivory, or brush management; natural succession of woody species. 5.4A - Brush management/removal of unwanted species. State 6 submodel, plant communities
6.1A - Remove undesirable competitors; final soil preparation; establish site-appropriate species (favored in management). State 7 submodel, plant communities
State 1
Reference: Loamy Interfluve ForestRemoval of or extensive modification to the historic natural communities in the St. Francis Basin occurred long before thorough studies and investigations were conducted. Furthermore, drainage patterns and surface characteristics of the landscape have since been heavily altered. Great variability is likely to occur throughout the distribution of most if not all ecological sites. Local soils and hydrologic regimes will have been influenced by the environment they occur within including former land use histories. Such complexity across the area will likely result in much variability in vegetation composition and structure of local environments (Stanturf et al., 2001).
Accordingly, reference conditions for this site have yet to be confirmed, but recent observations and published accounts have provided a convincing context from which to guide future efforts. Once assigned or identified and verified, the reference community will not represent the pre-settlement forest community, but it should identify an assemblage of naturally occurring species that reflects and contributes to regional biodiversity and local ecological dynamics. Implicated in the latter is that the “local” geomorphic features and drainage patterns of this soil-site environment should not have been drastically altered or removed (e.g., land leveled).
The name of this state (currently assigned the Reference State and warrants verification) is an interpretation based on Klimas et al. (2013) and bolstered from observations by Missouri colleagues. The productive loamy soils of this site have moderate extent across the surfaces of the Late Pleistocene valley trains in southeastern Missouri and northeastern Arkansas. Observations and literature accounts published to date are combined, herein.
The current state and transition model does not have a return or transition pathway from the altered states back to reference conditions. Former land uses (alternate states) that result in altered soil structure (e.g., compaction and increased bulk densities), lower soil organic matter content, altered fertility, and smaller available rooting volume can reduce woodland site productivity by 10 to 20 percent for some species(Groninger et al., 1999) and may result in high seedling mortality. Attempts to establish reference conditions under these soil-site constraints could result in poor establishment and response, colonization by undesirable taxa, or failure. These soil-site impacts, however, can be ameliorated through various “afforestation” techniques such as plow pan breakup (subsoil or deep plowing), fertilization, and fallowing fields before stand establishment (Emile Gardiner, USFS Research Forester, personal communication). State 6 (Forest Recovery) is representative of forest establishment and growth on locations where soil compaction and reduction of nutrients have occurred. Once a previously affected location has recovered its site potential, transition to the reference state may be possible. Realistically, it may not always be possible to return to a “perceived” reference state from a former altered condition. While planting and establishing trees appropriate for a site may be possible, achieving restoration of the understory and other system functions present challenges that may never be realized (Stanturf et al., 2001; Flinn and Vellend, 2005). That potential transition is still under review and is currently not shown or addressed in the state and transition model.Community 1.1
Cherrybark Oak - Swamp Chestnut Oak Braided Interfluve ForestBased on available information, this community is “provisionally” considered to be representative of reference conditions for this ecological site. This community was first recognized by Putnam and Bull (1932) as loamy ridge oaks and later described by Putnam (1951) as occurring “…on the most matured terrace soils.” Their early descriptions were later combined into a singular forest type: swamp chestnut oak – cherrybark oak (SAF Type No. 91; Eyre, 1980). During early ecological site inventories, colleagues in Missouri described the “loamy braided terrace” soils as supporting a variant of the communities referenced and described by the preceding authors. The association they “typed” during their investigations was the cherrybark oak – swamp chestnut oak / burningbush (Euonymus atropurpureus) / eastern waterleaf (Hydrophyllum virginianum) – sedge (Carex spp.) Loamy Braided Terrace Forest (Doug Wallace, personal communication). Independent investigations conducted by Klimas et al. (2013) in Arkansas reported similar dominant canopy species occurring on higher interfluves of Pleistocene outwash terraces.
The dominant canopy species reported on this site in Missouri and Arkansas include cherrybark oak, swamp chestnut oak, water oak, Shumard’s oak, bitternut hickory, pecan, American elm, and sugarberry (Klimas et al., 2013; Doug Wallace, personal communication). Eyre (1980) provided a much expanded list of possible associates of this cover type including willow oak (Quercus phellos), white oak (Q. alba), bottomland or Delta post oak (Q. similis), post oak (Q. stellata), sweetgum, green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), white ash (F. americana), shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), shellbark hickory (C. laciniosa), mockernut hickory (C. tomentosa), and blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica). The understory is generally well represented with subordinate trees and shrubs that include pawpaw (Asimina triloba), American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), flowering dogwood (Cornus floridana), possumhaw (Ilex decidua), devil’s walkingstick (Aralia spinosa), eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis), and American holly (Ilex opaca). Ground cover is reportedly dense and diverse with herbaceous components consisting of sedges (Carex spp.) and dense growths of the fabled giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea) within some canopy openings. Vines can be prevalent in the understory and may be represented by eastern poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), and Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia) (NatureServe, 2020).
Broadfoot (1976) provided a list of species that are favored in management and that occur frequently or occasionally on one of the principal soils of this site, the moderately well drained Askew soils. The following are species favored in management and that frequently occur on Askew soils (per Broadfoot, 1976) with estimated site index ranges (tree height in feet at 50 years except cottonwood which is 30 years) in parentheses: cherrybark oak (95 to 115), water oak (90 to 110), willow oak (90 to 110), and sweetgum (90 to 110). The following are site index ranges of species favored in management that occasionally occur on Askew soils: green ash (70 to 90), eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides, 90 to 110), hickory (75 to 95), Nuttall oak (90 to 110), Shumard oak (95 to 115), swamp chestnut oak (80 to 100), pecan (Carya illinoinensis, 85 to 105), and American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis, 100 to 120).Dominant plant species
-
cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda), tree
-
swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), tree
-
water oak (Quercus nigra), tree
-
Shumard's oak (Quercus shumardii), tree
-
bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis), tree
-
pecan (Carya illinoinensis), tree
-
American elm (Ulmus americana), tree
-
sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), tree
-
pawpaw (Asimina triloba), shrub
-
possumhaw (Ilex decidua), shrub
-
giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), shrub
-
eastern poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), shrub
-
trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), shrub
-
Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), shrub
-
sedge (Carex), grass
State 2
Commercial ForestlandThis state consists of two very different community phases and management approaches. Community Phase 2.1 represents forest management and production on this site. A distinguishing feature of this phase is the level of management intensity designed to maximize merchantable goals. Various silvicultural methods are available for selection, and these are generally grouped into even-aged (e.g., clearcutting, seed-tree, and shelterwood) and uneven-aged (e.g., single tree, diameter-limit, basal area, and group selection) approaches (Meadows and Stanturf, 1997). Depending on the method selected, different structural and compositional characteristics of the stand may result. Removal and control of community associates are typically a critical element of production goals. These actions may result in different community or “management phases” (and possibly alternate states) depending on the methods used and desired results. Finding the appropriate approach for a given stand and environment necessitates close consultation with trained, experienced, and knowledgeable forestry professionals. If there is a desire to proceed with this state, it is strongly urged and advised that professional guidance be obtained and a well-designed silvicultural plan developed in advance of any work conducted.
Community Phase 2.2 represents conditions of many stands that have incurred indiscriminate timber harvests (e.g., heavy cutting or diameter-limit harvests of select species) and opportunistic regrowth following such harvests (i.e., no management at any period). Some stands may continue to support a few desirable species and quality stems, but in many instances, affected stands will be comprised of mostly shade tolerant species or trees of desirable species that fail to meet their maximum potential. (Because of the intensive management required to rehabilitate affected stands, this community phase may warrant elevation to a standalone state. This should be considered in future iterations of this site’s development.)
This site is well suited for forest production with very few limitations. Where this site occurs in complex or contact with wetter ecological sites, seasonal wetness and periods of heavy precipitation can impose some limitations on heavy equipment usage. If possible, equipment operations are best conducted during drier periods of the year, which minimizes soil damage, erosion, and helps to maintain productivity. Perhaps the most significant limitation is the inherent productivity of the soils. This can contribute to intense plant competition and even exclusion of targeted (desirable) trees if management of the stand becomes relaxed or is not pursued.
An important caveat of this state is its representation of forest conditions that have retained full site production potential. Currently, transitional pathways to this state originate from another forested state (State 1), only. Former land uses (alternate states) that result in soil compaction (increased bulk densities), lower soil organic matter content, altered fertility, and smaller available rooting volume can reduce forest site productivity by 10 to 20 percent, if not more, for some species (Groninger et al., 1999). These impacts are perhaps most pronounced on poorly drained, clayey soils. The higher and better drained loamy soils of this site likely will not have the deleterious impacts to tree productivity on the same scale as the latter. Still, the combined effects of intensive, long-term cultivation (e.g., moderately compacted soils, plow pan presence, reduced fertility, and low organic matter content) on the well-developed soils of this site can lower site productivity for some species (see Baker and Broadfoot, 1979). These impacts, however, can be ameliorated through various “afforestation” techniques such as plow pan breakup (subsoil or deep plowing), fertilization, and fallowing fields before stand establishment (Emile Gardiner, USFS Research Forester, personal communication with Rachel Stout Evans, contributing author). State 6 (Forest Recovery) is representative of forest establishment and growth on locations where soil compaction and reduction of nutrients have occurred. Once a previously affected location has recovered its site potential, transition to this state may be possible. That potential transition is still under review and is currently not shown or addressed in the state and transition model.Community 2.1
Forest ManagementPrescribing a silvicultural system for a given stand depends on species composition; long term production and postproduction goals; and the presence and abundance of advance regeneration (i.e., the presence of seedlings and saplings of the desired species). The canopy trees listed in State 1 as “favored in management” are all production options on this site ranging from single species plantations to complex multi-species stands. (Species favored in management are indicated below under the "Dominant tree species" section for convenience.)
Establishing and maintaining oaks on bottomland sites may be preferred given the multiple values they provide (e.g., timber and wildlife). However, maintaining that component beyond a single rotation (or harvest) may be the most challenging. Creating conditions that promote oak persistence in future stands require a sufficient advance regeneration component. Ensuring that this future crop is established will require close adherence to a well-designed silvicultural plan, which requires programmatic intermediate operations (e.g., improvement cuttings, thinnings, and other partial cuttings). An even-aged silvicultural system that utilizes the clearcutting regeneration method along with brush management to reduce subsequent competition is typically the advocated approach when harvesting bottomland oak stands (Johnson and Shropshire, 1983; Clatterbuck and Meadows, 1993; Hodges, 1995; Meadows and Stanturf, 1997; Oliver et al., 2005).
Except pecan, the remaining trees that are favored in management are light-seeded species. Various silvicultural systems may be implemented to promote production of these species including even-aged and group selection (uneven-aged) approaches (see Meadows and Stanturf, 1997).Community 2.2
Non-managed/High-gradedThis forest community is directly influenced by former harvesting practices that include repeated single-tree selection and/or diameter-limit harvests with no additional management activities (e.g., brush management, competitor control, etc.). These practices typically target the highest quality trees of the most desirable species. The result is usually an expansion and in-filling of shade tolerant subcanopy trees. Over time, this practice will lead to a predominantly shade tolerant community that may be comprised of American elm, winged elm, hickory, blackgum, boxelder (Acer negundo), American hornbeam, roughleaf dogwood, possumhaw, and possibly sugarberry, although reportedly rare on ridges of older alluvium (Putnam et al., 1960).
Pathway 2.1A
Community 2.1 to 2.2Heavy cutting of the stand that removes the desired species (typically shade intolerant species) of sufficient diameters followed by no management of the residual stand. This pathway also includes repeated single-tree harvests (e.g., diameter-limit cuts) that removes the desired species followed by no management of the residual stand. The resulting stand is typically comprised of shade tolerant species with low commercial value.
Pathway 2.2A
Community 2.2 to 2.1Intensive management will be required to push a shade tolerant community into a more commercially desirable and viable system. Actions will likely require a complete clearcut of the stand followed by repeated brush and competitor control (chemical and mechanical). If there is a lack of seed source, artificial regeneration will likely be required to reintroduce heavy-seeded species (e.g., oaks). Continual competitor control will be needed.
State 3
CroplandThis state is representative of the dominant land use activity on this ecological site, agriculture production. The dominant crops grown on this site are cotton (Gossypium hirsutum), corn (Zea mays), soybeans (Glycine max) and wheat (Triticum aestivum) (Snipes et al., 2005). Minor crops, such as some specialty crops (e.g., fruits, vegetables, and tree nuts such as pecans), may be grown locally.
The soils of this site are well suited to agriculture production. Tilth is reportedly good with a surface layer that is very friable and easily tilled and managed over a wide range of moisture content. Management concerns are largely centered on erosion, plow pan development, soil compaction under equipment traffic, crusting and packing following heavy rain, and low organic matter content (Snipes et al., 2005; USDA-NRCS, 2006b). Snipes et al. (2005) emphasized that the organic matter content of the soils of this site typically range from 0.5 to 2.0 percent with most concentrations within to 0.9 to 1.5 percent range. Each of these factors could affect yields or impede optimum operation. Management measures to ameliorate some of these issues may include implementing a conservation tillage or management system and subsoiling to breakup plow pans (USDA-NRCS, 2006b). Major components that producers generally develop and plan are proper selection of crop cultivar, pest control, cropping system, tillage methods, nutrient management, and water management (Snipes et al., 2005). Key practices of some cropping systems often include two or more crops grown in a multiyear rotation, which has been documented to disrupt pest cycles. Leaving crop residue on the surface can help to maintain tilth, fertility, and organic matter content – all critical elements of soil quality and health. For monoculture cropping systems, the implementation of well-designed pest and nutrient management systems are imperative (Pringle et al., 2017). (For assistance, interested parties are advised to visit their local NRCS Field Office.)
Three separate management phases comprise this state: Conservation Management (3.1), Transitional Conservation Management (3.2), and Conventional Management (3.3). The three phases consist of varying tillage methods and approaches to soil health management systems.Community 3.1
Conservation ManagementThis cropland phase utilizes long term, continuous conservation management systems that include reduced till and cover crops; no-till with cover crops; crop residue retention; and perennial cropping systems. The guiding principles of this system are minimizing soil disturbance and maximizing soil cover, biodiversity, and the presence of living roots. Implementing diverse crop rotations while maintaining these principles can lend to the development of an integrated pest management plan and contribute to overall system resilience.
Of caution, the above-ground crop growth or yields may not be the best tracking mechanism for assessing the efficacy or presence of this management phase. Indicators of these systems are generally determined via soil-site assessments with outcomes that may include enhanced soil aggregate stability, increased soil biological activity, higher organic matter content, and improved water holding capacity and infiltration rates while also alleviating soil compaction and reducing runoff and erosion (Chessman et al., 2019). Additional advantages to this system that have been noted by some producers are reductions in fuel and labor costs and less wear and tear on machinery and equipment.
There are challenges to this management system, especially in situations where tillage may be considered and/or needed to repair weather damage or other detrimental impacts. Implementation of conventional tillage even after long term conservation practices (e.g., no-till) can reset the affected area back to a conventional cropping system. However, those changes can be reversed and a return to a conservation management system is achievable.
Critical conservation practices associated with this phase include cover crops, no-till, and reduced till as the foundational practices. Additionally, this phase may include supporting and site-specific practices to address conservation needs for a given location.Community 3.2
Transitional Conservation ManagementThis cropland phase utilizes a hybrid approach that combines conventional methods with conservation practices at specific periods and under specific situations. Practices under this phase may include a combination of conventional till, reduced till, strip till, and the inclusion of cover crops. For instance, perennial crop species could be in a continuous transitional phase where conventional tillage is implemented at the time of planting followed by reduced tillage during the rotation. Planted forage crops could also be included in this phase, especially when part of a crop rotation that utilizes reduced tillage for one crop followed by conventional tillage for a succeeding crop.
The development, implementation, and refinement of nutrient and pest management plans throughout component operations are imperative. Additionally, this phase may include supporting and site-specific practices to address conservation needs for a given location.Community 3.3
Conventional ManagementThis management phase is representative of conventional cropland where tillage is implemented as an annual component of the production system. As crucial elements of the system, conservation practices such as nutrient and pest management are needed to address fertility requirements and pest concerns within the crop cycle. It is important to note that this phase may develop when tillage is implemented to address damage or for other purposes while under a conservation management system (Community Phase 3.1). There could also be associated, supporting, and site-specific practices that are needed to address specific conservation needs. Specific needs may include grade stabilization structures to control gully erosion, grassed waterways to trap sediment from sheet and rill erosion, or implementing reduced till.
Pathway 3.1A
Community 3.1 to 3.2Soil disturbance (tillage); reduction of soil health.
Pathway 3.1B
Community 3.1 to 3.3Conventional tillage, seeding, and fertility management for crops.
Pathway 3.2A
Community 3.2 to 3.1No-till, cover crops, reduced till-soil health improvements.
Pathway 3.2B
Community 3.2 to 3.3Conventional tillage, seeding, and fertility management for crops.
Pathway 3.3A
Community 3.3 to 3.2Reduced till, no-till, and cover crops with soil health improvements as a goal.
State 4
Land Formed CroplandThis gently sloping to undulating ecological site typically adjoins nearly level to level landscapes. It is bordered by soils of varying textures and drainage characteristics. Accordingly, inconsistencies in wetness, ease of operation, and production or yields may occur across a cropped location. An increasingly common practice on this site consists of land forming or leveling surface irregularities into a predetermined and engineered, uniform slope. This practice removes the drier and higher features of this site, which are then used to fill wetter and lower positions (e.g., depressions or swales) across the targeted area. Advantages of land leveling may include reduced hazards of erosion and runoff rates, improved surface drainage, and enhanced distribution and conservation of irrigation water. Disadvantages of the practice is a churning of various surface and subsurface materials (former soil horizons) that no longer occur in a predictable or regular pattern. Organic matter content in the surface layer is generally low, and the surface tends to crust and pack after heavy rains (USDA-NRCS, 2006b). One potential hazard that appears to be emerging in some areas is an effective management of surface water runoff. As both irrigated and stormwater runs off leveled fields at uniform rates, surface water tends to collect cumulatively and simultaneously, which places tremendous demands on local drainage networks. Without “in field” structures (natural or artificial) to stagger runoff, the downslope (or lower) ends of some fields tend to back flood thereby contributing to more flooding overall in local watersheds (personal observations).
Immediately following land leveling, the constituent elements of soil health are likely to be absent. In some areas, producers have initiated practices such as applying organic residues (e.g., poultry litter) or growing rice crops for one to two years to rapidly boost fertility and introduce organic matter (via rice biomass) in the surface layer. Over time, the full complement of the management (or community) phases of State 3 may be possible on land leveled fields. They are not repeated or indicated here.
Currently, this state serves as an endpoint in the state and transition model because the ability to predict vegetation response when transitioning to a different state is no longer possible without soil-site investigations for each area of interest. The former soils of this ecological site, including surface and subsurface horizons, will have been redistributed as particles among other former soils.Community 4.1
Land Leveled CroplandSome of the crop species and management practices indicated and discussed in State 3 (including all three management phases) may be suitable for establishing on land leveled areas that once supported the soils of this site. However, the type of crops suited for newly leveled areas may ultimately depend on the prevailing soil particle-size distribution and internal drainage characteristics. Former studies on precision leveled fields have noted variabilities and inconsistencies in soil particle-size distributions, bulk density, soil biological properties, and nutrients (Brye et al., 2003; Walker et al., 2003; Brye et al., 2006). Management concerns for this phase may consist of restricted permeability, low organic matter content, and crusting and packing (USDA-NRCS, 2006b). These impacts may be improved by implementing conservation tillage, cover crops, retaining crop residue, and nutrient and pest management strategies.
State 5
Pastureland/GrasslandThis state is representative of areas that have been converted to and maintained in pasture or grassland. The soils of this site are generally considered well suited to most commonly grown perennial forage species. Available water capacity is moderate to high, and production on this site is generally high when areas are adequately fertilized and properly managed. The very strongly to moderately acid reactions of these soils usually require lime for many forage species.
Given that this ecological site adjoins lower, wetter sites, some forage operations may utilize the higher elevations of this site as a protected area. This site may be suitable for the storage of harvested forage or holding of livestock when wet or flooded conditions occur on lower areas.
Establishing an effective pasture management program can help minimize degradation of the site and assist in maintaining growth of desired forage. An effective pasture management program includes selecting well-adapted grass and/or legume species that will grow and establish rapidly; maintaining proper soil pH and fertility levels; using controlled grazing practices; mowing at proper timing and stage of maturity; allowing new seedings to become well established before use; and renovating pastures when needed (Rhodes et al., 2005; Green et al., 2006).
This state consists of four community phases that represent a range of forage management options and pasture and hayland condition scenarios. Options range from establishing a forage monoculture for haying to a broad mixture of forage species for production and grazing. It is strongly advised that consultation with local NRCS Service Centers be sought when assistance is needed in developing management recommendations or prescribed grazing practices.Community 5.1
Monoculture GrasslandThis phase is mainly characterized by planting forage species for hay production. Forage plantings generally consist of a single grass species. Native and non-native forage species can be seeded. Forage is usually harvested as hay or haylage, although grazing may occur periodically. These sites are highly productive for forage and can provide ecological benefits to control soil erosion. Allowing for adequate rest and regrowth of desired species is required to maintain productivity. Maintenance of monoculture stands also requires control of unwanted species, which will require pest and nutrient management.
Generally, the application of fertilizer and lime is needed to establish and maintain improved desirable pastures. Exceptions do occur for bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum) and common bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon), which can be sustained under natural fertility and pH levels. Introduced grasses, such as hybrid bermudagrass, require a higher level of sustained fertility, pH above 6.0, and good surface drainage to persist. An additional measure to aid production may include prescribed grazing. Implementing limited and monitored grazing can promote deeper root penetration of grasses with the added benefit of greater nutrient and moisture uptake. This synergistic approach can lead to increased production of and may sustain desirable forages.
Conservation practices should include prescribed grazing, or forage harvest management, nutrient and pest management, and potentially other site-specific practices.Dominant plant species
-
tall fescue (Schedonorus arundinaceus), grass
-
Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon), grass
-
dallisgrass (Paspalum dilatatum), grass
-
bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum), grass
Community 5.2
Mixed Species SystemThis community is characterized by mixed species composition of grasses and legumes. Components of this forage system are either planted or they established naturally. Typically, perennial warm-season grasses are the foundation of the stand that are periodically overseeded with adapted cool-season forages. The latter creates an added benefit of extending the grazing season. This community phase can be highly productive for grazing and haying operations and can provide beneficial habitat for some wildlife species.
Maintenance of grass stands also requires a series of management practices such as prescribed grazing, brush management, pest management, and nutrient management to maintain production of the desired species. Prescribed grazing includes maintaining proper grazing or forage heights, timing, and stocking rates. Supporting or facilitating practices such as fences, water lines, and watering facilities could be part of the system that maintains this phase.Dominant plant species
-
tall fescue (Schedonorus arundinaceus), grass
-
Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon), grass
-
dallisgrass (Paspalum dilatatum), grass
-
bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum), grass
-
white clover (Trifolium repens), other herbaceous
-
red clover (Trifolium pratense), other herbaceous
-
crimson clover (Trifolium incarnatum), other herbaceous
Community 5.3
Mixed Species, Non-seededThis community is characterized by a mixture of native and naturalized non-native species. Forage is usually grazed and/or harvested as stored forage, hay or haylage. Common established species may include tall fescue, Bermudagrass, bahiagrass, dallisgrass, and carpetgrass (Axonopus sp.).
Stands are generally productive, and forage and grazing management can maintain the community. Healthy stands provide additional benefits by protecting soils from excessive runoff and erosion. However, a common peril associated with this phase is overgrazing, which lowers production and favors less palatable weedy species, especially in areas where livestock congregate. Proper stocking rates or grazing systems that allow for adequate rest and plant regrowth are required to maintain productivity. When forage species are afforded adequate recovery time between grazing intervals, they develop deeper root systems and greater leaf area. Conversely, when plants are not allowed to adequately recover, root development will be restricted leading to lower forage and biomass production. Additionally, maintenance of grass stands requires implementing pest management practices to control unwanted weedy and woody species.Community 5.4
Early Woody SuccessionThis community is characterized by a diverse composition of grasses and forbs with an increasing presence of woody species (both native and non-native) that are immature and of low stature. Woody species grow quickly on this site and can be difficult and expensive to control. One potentially problematic species may be honeylocust (Gleditsia triacanthos). Putnam (1951) reported honeylocust as being common on old pastures, and the species can be difficult to remove once established. Management to transition this phase to other forage communities of this state is still possible without excessive inputs and effort, particularly if stem diameters remain below 2 inches and are widely scattered (e.g., a density of less than 100 stems per acre). However, if diameters become greater than 3 inches and densities exceed 300 stems per acre, far more investment, effort, and inputs will be required. If brush management measures are not undertaken, the plant community will transition to the Ruderal/Opportunistic Regrowth (Community Phase 6.1) of State 6.
Of note, this community phase is often very beneficial habitat for some wildlife species, especially a specific guild of resident and Neotropical migratory bird species that depend on old field to young tree stand habitats.Pathway 5.1A
Community 5.1 to 5.2Seeding and/or management for desired species composition.
Pathway 5.1B
Community 5.1 to 5.3Species management without overseeding.
Pathway 5.2A
Community 5.2 to 5.1Seeding, fertilizing, management/removal of undesirable species.
Pathway 5.2B
Community 5.2 to 5.3Species management without overseeding
Pathway 5.3A
Community 5.3 to 5.1Seeding, fertilizing, management/removal of undesirable species.
Pathway 5.3B
Community 5.3 to 5.2Seeding and/or management for desired species composition.
Pathway 5.3C
Community 5.3 to 5.4Lack of disturbance; no (infrequent) mowing, herbivory, or brush management; natural succession of woody species.
Pathway 5.4A
Community 5.4 to 5.3Brush management/removal of unwanted species.
State 6
Forest RecoveryThis state is representative of forest recovery in areas that were once under former intensive land use such as long-term row crop cultivation. Characteristics that distinguish this state from other forest states on this site include a suite of soil-site properties that reportedly affect tree growth such as higher soil bulk density due to compaction, presence of a plow pan, lower organic matter content, and reduced fertility (Baker and Broadfoot, 1979; Groninger et al., 1999). Two community phases are provisionally recognized for this state. Community Phase 6.1 represents natural colonization of tree and shrub species without management. Community Phase 6.2 is representative of intentional forest establishment by artificial regeneration or planting.
For Community Phase 6.2, determining the objectives and goals of the future stand is imperative to increase the probability of successful establishment and production of the afforested area. These decisions will ultimately determine the species to be established, preparation requirements, planting density, and post-planting operations (e.g., competitor control, future improvement cuttings and thinnings, regeneration methods, and overall stand health). Since each area targeted for afforestation may have unique or different land use histories, having a clear understanding of the soil-site conditions are essential. Some areas may necessitate a series of soil improvement actions prior to planting. These actions may include subsoiling or deep plowing to breakup plow pans and fertilizing the targeted area. An additional option is to allow the area to undergo fallowing for a predetermined period (Community Phase 6.1) to potentially increase soil organic matter content, enhance soil aggregate stability, increase soil biological activity, and improve water holding capacity and infiltration rates. Controlling competing vegetation (chemical and mechanical treatment) will most likely be critical. Post-planting operations and maintenance of the stand can enhance survival, future development, and achieve goals and objectives (see Gardiner et al., 2002).
Finding the appropriate approach for a given environment necessitates close consultation with trained, experienced, and knowledgeable forestry professionals. If there is a desire to proceed with this state, it is strongly urged and advised that professional guidance be obtained and a well-designed afforestation and silvicultural plan developed in advance of any work conducted. For an exceptional review and summarization of the afforestation literature, techniques, and practices within the Southern Mississippi River Alluvium, interested parties are directed to Gardiner et al. (2002).Community 6.1
Ruderal/Opportunistic RegrowthThis community phase is representative of former working lands (e.g., cropland and possibly high concentration areas of former pastureland) that have fallowed and subsequently undergone natural colonization by vegetation. A profusion of growth will likely initiate within five to ten years of becoming idle – one that typically includes grasses, forbs, woody seedlings and shrubs, and an increasing presence and covering of vines. Initial colonization may be dominant in annuals followed by a shift to perennial vegetation. Shrubs and tree seedlings may appear very early following abandonment, however the rate of colonization and period to stand establishment likely depends on the proximity of established mature stands (Battaglia et al., 1995; Battaglia et al., 2002). If established stands consisting of light-seeded species adjoin fallow fields, colonizing tree species will likely be comprised of those taxa (e.g., green ash, elm, sycamore, and cottonwood) (Allen, 1990; Stanturf et al., 2001). Some areas may be far removed from established forest stands. Under this scenario, establishment of woody species (especially overstory tree species) may be very slow, and years may be required before stand establishment is reached (Battaglia et al., 1995; Allen, 1997). In fact, natural colonization by some species may be delayed indefinitely with some stands or areas being understocked (Allen, 1997; Battaglia et al., 2002; Groninger, 2005). Heavy-seeded species like oaks and hickory may not have an opportunity to colonize available areas due to distance and lack of a dependable dispersing agent (e.g., wildlife and water). For those areas close to a viable seed source, oaks may be a component of the developing stand, although in the early stages of stand development oaks are likely to be a minor component (Meadows, 1993). Non-native invasive species may become part of the developing stand given the proliferation of exotic plant species over the past century.
It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to predict the future composition and structure of an abandoned field on this site. Many different environmental factors will influence initial colonization and development trajectories. The following projections are simply based on native plant species reported to occur on the soils of this site. As the young stand matures and eventually enters the stem exclusion stage (crown or canopy closure), composition may include American elm, green ash, eastern cottonwood, American sycamore, sweetgum, and American hornbeam. Oaks that may occur in the young stand include cherrybark, swamp chestnut, water, willow, and possibly Nuttall but these will likely be rare or uncommon components, if present at all. Problematic non-native species that may occur include Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and possibly Callery pear (Pyrus calleryana). Vines common in the young, developing stand may include greenbrier (Smilax spp.), eastern poison ivy, and trumpet creeper. As the stand matures decades into the future and the overstory stratifies (i.e., the understory reinitiation stage), shade tolerant species may rise to prominence in the stand.Community 6.2
AfforestationThis community phase is representative of areas planted in tree species that are suited for and favored in management on this ecological site. Preparation of this phase may be initiated immediately following a former landuse activity (e.g., State 3) or it may be started following a fallow period (Community Phase 6.1). If afforestation is initiated immediately following years of conventional tillage without soil-site preparation and improvement efforts, potential productivity of the targeted area could be less than optimal if soil compaction, plow pan presence, degraded fertility, and/or depleted organic matter content are existing factors (Baker and Broadfoot, 1979; Groninger et al., 1999; Gardiner et al., 2002).
Over the years, various afforestation innovations have increased the likelihood of success in addition to soil-site amelioration such as planting large, high-quality seedlings with well-developed root systems in an appropriate cover crop (Dey et al., 2010); interplanting seedlings within a fast-growing pioneer species nurse crop (e.g., cottonwood) (Gardiner et al., 2001); and planting companionable species combinations for mixed species stands (Lockhart et al., 2008). The cover crop and nurse crop approaches reportedly help to control rapid overtopping and crowding by competing vegetation and wildlife herbivory (Dey et al., 2010). Finding the appropriate strategy for a given location requires matching the species to the local hydrologic and soil-site environment; determining short- and long-term objectives and goals; and implementing the appropriate management actions at the required intervals.
Several species that frequently occur and favored in management (see State 1) are likely appropriate for planting on this ecological site. However, Broadfoot (1976) listed a much narrower group of hardwoods suitable for planting on one of the soils of this site, Askew soils, and they are sweetgum, green ash, eastern cottonwood, Nuttall oak, Shumard’s oak, and American sycamore. Although not included in Broadfoot’s list of trees to plant, extremely important components such as cherrybark oak and water oak are included as naturally occurring species on these higher and drier “ridge soils” and may warrant consideration (Putnam, 1951; Eyre, 1980).Pathway 6.1A
Community 6.1 to 6.2Remove undesirable competitors; final soil preparation; establish site-appropriate species (favored in management).
State 7
Conservation (Herbaceous)This state is representative of the range of conservation actions that may be implemented and established on this ecological site. Apart from planting trees and managing for forest, one may elect to establish native herbaceous species and manage for predominantly a native grassland; a complex mixture of native grasses and forbs; or a pollinator planting whereby native forbs dominate the mix. In each of these options, it is strongly advised (possibly a programmatic requirement) that the species comprising the planting or seed mix consist of spring, summer, and fall flowering species. Depending on goals and objectives, various conservation programs and practices may be available. For additional information and assistance, please contact or visit the local NRCS Field Office.
Community 7.1
Pollinator Planting/Native GrassesThis community phase represents the establishment of native forbs or wildflowers for pollinator habitat or native grasses. The seed mix for planting may be quite varied depending on objectives and goals. Ideally, the mix includes a wide range of species that flower at various times of the growing season (spring, summer, and fall). Plant species in some pollinator mixes may include but are not limited to beebalm (Monarda spp.), milkweeds (Asclepias spp.), beardtongue (Penstemon spp.), vervain (Verbena spp.), various legumes such as native lespedeza (Lespedeza spp.), Illinois bundleflower (Desmanthus illinoensis), partridge pea (Chamaecrista fasciculata), and a broad assortment of composites such as asters (Symphyotrichum spp.), tickseed (Coreopsis spp.), blazing star (Liatris spp.), coneflower (Rudbeckia spp.), sunflower (Helianthus spp.) among many others. If goals and objectives are to establish native grasses within a forb mix or in a grass-dominant stand, species suitable for planting may include big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium) and Indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans).
Key to the establishment of this phase is initial preparation, seeding rate, planting period, follow-up treatment, and maintenance of the planting. The selection of species to establish on any given area may ultimately depend on size and conditions of the location where the planting will occur, landowner/manager goals and objectives, and the advice and knowledge of the conservation practitioner.Transition T1A
State 1 to 2Stand composition is heavily altered and managed to favor select species for production (Community Phase 2.1). This transitional pathway also includes heavy timber cutting and/or repeated partial harvests (high-grading) leading to Community Phase 2.2.
Transition T1B
State 1 to 3Actions include mechanical removal of vegetation and stumps; herbicide treatment of residual plants; and preparation for cultivation.
Transition T1C
State 1 to 5Actions include mechanical removal of vegetation and stumps; herbicide treatment of residual plants; seedbed preparation; and establishment of desired forage.
Transition T2A
State 2 to 1This transition represents a return to perceived reference conditions and involves the re-establishment of missing species; the control/removal of exotic species (herbicide and mechanical); stand improvement practices that favors a return of more shade intolerant components.
Transition T2B
State 2 to 3Actions include mechanical removal of vegetation and stumps; herbicide treatment of residual plants; and preparation for cultivation.
Transition T2C
State 2 to 5Actions include mechanical removal of vegetation and stumps; herbicide treatment of residual plants; seedbed preparation; and establishment of desired forage.
Transition T3A
State 3 to 4Precision land leveling
Transition T3B
State 3 to 5Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); seedbed preparation; establishment of desired forage; manage for grazing
Transition T3C
State 3 to 6Natural succession (Community 6.1) or prepare area (e.g., plow pan breakup, fertilizing, etc.) and plant tree species appropriate for site (Afforestation - Community 6.2)
Transition T3D
State 3 to 7Establish select native species suitable for site; prepare for planting (herbicide and/or mechanical)
Transition T5A
State 5 to 3Actions include mechanical removal of vegetation; herbicide treatment of residual plants; and preparation for cultivation.
Transition T5B
State 5 to 6Natural succession (Community 6.1) or prepare area (e.g., plow pan breakup, fertilizing, etc.) for planting tree species appropriate for site (Afforestation - Community 6.2)
Transition T5C
State 5 to 7Establish select native species suitable for site and prepare area for planting (herbicide and/or mechanical).
Transition T6A
State 6 to 3Cropland establishment: vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical) and preparation for cultivation.
Transition T6B
State 6 to 5Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); seedbed preparation; establishment of desired forage; manage for grazing
Transition T7A
State 7 to 3Cropland establishment: vegetation removal (mechanical/chemical) and preparation for cultivation.
Transition T7B
State 7 to 5Establish desired forage species and manage for grazing.
Transition T7C
State 7 to 6Natural succession (Community 6.1) or prepare area (e.g., plow pan breakup, fertilizing, etc.) for planting tree species appropriate for site (Afforestation - Community 6.2).
Additional community tables
Table 7. Community 1.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 8. Community 2.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 9. Community 2.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 10. Community 3.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 11. Community 3.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 12. Community 3.3 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 13. Community 4.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 14. Community 5.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 15. Community 5.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 16. Community 5.3 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 17. Community 5.4 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 18. Community 6.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 19. Community 6.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 20. Community 7.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Interpretations
Supporting information
Inventory data references
The information provided on the states and community phases in this provisional description report were generated from literature reviews, conversations with technical specialists, and limited personal observations and experience on this soil-site environment. Intensive vegetation inventories were not conducted during the development of this provisional report. Those tasks will occur during future phases of ecological site development.
Other references
Allen, J.A. 1990. Establishment of bottomland oak plantations on the Yazoo National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 14(4): 206-210.
Allen, J.A. 1997. Reforestation of bottomland hardwoods and the issue of woody species diversity. Restoration Ecology 5(2): 125-134.
Aslan, A. and W.J. Autin. 1999. Evolution of the Holocene Mississippi River floodplain, Ferriday, Louisiana: Insights on the origin of fine-grained floodplains. Journal of Sedimentary Research 69: 800-815.
Autin, W.J., S.F. Burns, B.J. Miller, R.T. Saucier, and J.I. Snead. 1991. Quaternary geology of the Lower Mississippi Valley. p. 547-582. In R.B. Morrison (Editor). Quaternary Nonglacial Geology: Conterminous U.S. Geological Society of America. The Geology of North America, Volume K-2. Boulder, CO.
Baker, J.B. and W.M. Broadfoot. 1979. A practical field method of site evaluation for commercially important southern hardwoods. General Technical Report SO-26. Southern Forest Experiment Station, New Orleans, LA. 51p.
Battaglia, L.L., J.R. Keough, and D.W. Pritchett. 1995. Early secondary succession in a southeastern U.S. alluvial floodplain. Journal of Vegetation Science 6(6): 769-776.
Battaglia, L.L., P.R. Minchin, and D.W. Pritchett. 2002. Sixteen years of old-field succession and reestablishment of a bottomland hardwood forest in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Wetlands 22(1): 1-17.
Blum, M.D., M.J. Guccione, D.A. Wysocki, P.C. Robnett, and M. Rutledge. 2000. Late Pleistocene evolution of the Lower Mississippi Valley, southern Missouri to Arkansas. Geological Society of America Bulletin 112: 221-235.
Broadfoot, W.M. 1976. Hardwood suitability for and properties of important Midsouth soils. USDA Forest Service Research Paper SO-127. Southern Forest Experiment Station, New Orleans, LA. 84 p.
Brye, K.R., N.A. Slaton, M.C. Savin, R.J. Norman, and D.M. Miller. 2003. Short-term effects of land leveling on soil physical properties and microbial biomass. Soil Science Society of America Journal 67: 1405-1417.
Brye, K.R., N.A. Slaton, and R.J. Norman. 2006. Soil physical and biological properties as affected by land leveling in a clayey Aquert. Soil Science Society of America Journal 70: 631-642.
Castilla, R.A. and F.A. Audemard. 2007. Sand blows as a potential tool for magnitude estimation of pre-instrumental earthquakes. Journal of Seismology 11(4): 473-487.
Chapman, S.S., J.M. Omernik, G.E. Griffith, W.A. Schroeder, T.A. Nigh, and T.F. Wilton. 2002. Ecoregions of Iowa and Missouri (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,800,000).
Chessman, D., B.N. Moebius-Clune, B.R. Smith, and B. Fisher. 2019. The basics of addressing resource concerns with conservation practices within integrated soil health management systems on cropland. Soil Health Technical Note No. 450-04. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Available: https://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/OpenNonWebContent.aspx?content=44340.wba (Accessed: 9 September 2020).
Clatterbuck, W.K. and J.S. Meadows. 1993. Regenerating oaks in the bottomlands. p: 184-195. In: D.L. Loftis and C.E. McGee (Editors). Oak Regeneration: Serious Problems, Practical Recommendations. Symposium Proceedings, 8-10 September 1992, Knoxville, TN. General Technical Report SE-84. USDA Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, NC.
Cleland, D.T., J.A. Freeouf, J.E. Keys, G.J. Nowacki, C.A. Carpenter, and W.H. McNab. 2007. Ecological Subregions: Sections and Subsections for the conterminous United States. General Technical Report WO-76D, Map on CD-ROM (A.M. Sloan, cartographer). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC. presentation scale 1:3,500,000; colored.
Dey, D.C., E.S. Gardiner, J.M. Kabrick, J.A. Stanturf, and D.F. Jacobs. 2010. Innovations in afforestation of agricultural bottomlands to restore native forests in the eastern USA. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 25(S8): 31-42.
Elliott, D.O. 1932. The Improvement of the Lower Mississippi River for Flood Control and Navigation. Volume 1. U.S. Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Eyre, F.H. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Society of American Foresters, Washington, DC. 148 p.
Flinn, K.M. and M. Vellend. 2005. Recovery of forest plant communities in post-agricultural landscapes. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3(5): 243-250.
Fuller, M.L. 1912. The New Madrid Earthquake. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 494. 120 p.
Gardiner, E.S. personal communication. Research Forester, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Stoneville, MS.
Gardiner, E.S. and J.M. Oliver. 2005. Restoration of bottomland hardwood forests in Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley, U.S.A. p. 235-251. In: J.A. Stanturf and P. Madsen (Editors). Restoration of Boreal and Temperate Forests. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Gardiner, E.S., D.R. Russell, M. Oliver, and L.C. Dorris, Jr. 2002. Bottomland hardwood afforestation: state of the art. p. 75-86. In: M.M. Holland, M.L. Warren, and J.A. Stanturf (Editors). Proceedings of a conference on sustainability of wetlands and water resources: how well can riverine wetlands continue to support society into the 21st century? General Technical Report SRS-50. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC.
Gardiner, E.S., C.J. Schweitzer, and J.A. Stanturf. 2001. Photosynthesis of Nuttall oak (Quercus nuttallii Palm.) seedlings interplanted beneath an eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides Bartr. ex Marsh.) nurse crop. Forest Ecology and Management 149: 283-294.
Green, Jonathan D., W.W. Witt, and J.R. Martin. 2006. Weed management in grass pastures, hayfields, and other farmstead sites. University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service, Publication AGR-172.
Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, S. Azevedo. 1998. Ecoregions of Tennessee (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, VA., U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,000,000).
Groninger, J.W. 2005. Increasing the impact of bottomland hardwood afforestation. Journal of Forestry 103(4): 184-188.
Groninger, J.W., M.W. Aust, M. Miwa, and J.A. Stanturf. 1999. Tree species-soil relationships on marginal soybean lands in the Mississippi Delta. p. 205-209. In: J.D. Haywood (Editor). Proceedings of the Tenth Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference, Shreveport, LA. General Technical Report SRS-30. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC. 632 p.
Head, M.J. 2019. Formal subdivision of the Quaternary System/Period: Present status and future directions. Quaternary International 500: 32-51.
Hodges, J.D. 1995. The southern bottomland hardwood region and brown loam bluffs subregion. p. 227-269. In: J.W. Barrett (Editor). Regional Silviculture of the United States. Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY.
Hodges, J.D. 1997. Development and ecology of bottomland hardwood sites. Forest Ecology and Management 90: 117-125.
Johnson, R.L. and F.W. Shropshire. 1983. Bottomland Hardwoods. p. 175-179. In: R.M. Burns (Editor). Silvicultural Systems for the Major Forest Types of the United States. Agricultural Handbook 445. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC.
Klimas, C.V., E.O. Murray, J. Pagan, H. Langston, and T. Foti. 2011b. A Regional Guidebook for Applying the Hydrogeomorphic Approach to Assessing Functions of Forested Wetlands in the Delta Region of Arkansas, Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Valley, Version 2.0. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ecosystem Management and Restoration Research Program, ERDC/EL TR-11-12.
Klimas, C., J. Pagan, T. Foti., and B.E. Tirpak. 2011a. Potential Natural Vegetation of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley: Yazoo Basin, Mississippi. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture. Vicksburg, MS.
Klimas, C., T. Foti, J. Pagan, and M. Williamson. 2013. Potential Natural Vegetation of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley: St. Francis Basin, Arkansas, Field Atlas. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ecosystem Management and Restoration Research Program, ERDC/EL TR-12-23.
Lockhart, B.R., E. Gardiner, T. Leininger, and J. Stanturf. 2008. A stand-development approach to oak afforestation in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 32(3): 120-129.
Meadows, J.S. 1993. Stand development and silviculture in bottomland hardwoods. p. 12-16. In: W.P. Smith and D.N. Pashley (Editors). Proceedings of a workshop to resolve conflicts in the conservation of migratory landbirds of bottomland hardwood forests. 9-10 August 1993, Tallulah, LA. General Technical Report SO-114. USDA Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, New Orleans, LA.
Meadows, J.S. and J.A. Stanturf. 1997. Silvicultural systems for southern bottomland hardwoods. Forest Ecology and Management 90: 127-140.
Moore, N.R. 1972. Improvement of the Lower Mississippi River and Tributaries 1931-1972. Mississippi River Commission, Vicksburg, MS.
NatureServe. 2020. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available: http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: 21 July 2020).
Oliver, C.D., E.C. Burkhardt, and D.A. Skojac. 2005. The increasing scarcity of red oaks in Mississippi River floodplain forests: influence of the residual overstory. Forest Ecology and Management 210: 393-414.
Pringle, H.C., III, L. Falconer, D.K. Fisher, and L.J. Krutz. 2017. Initiation of furrow irrigation in corn on a Dundee/Forestdale silty clay loam soil with and without deep tillage. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 33(2): 205-216.
Putnam, J.A. 1951. Management of bottomland hardwoods. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, Occasional Paper 116.
Putnam, J.A. and H. Bull. 1932. The Trees of the Bottomlands of the Mississippi River Delta Region, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, Occasional Paper 27.
Putnam, J.A., G.M. Furnival, and J.S. McKnight. 1960. Management and inventory of southern hardwoods. USDA Forest Service. Agriculture Handbook Number 181. 108 p.
Rhodes, G.N., Jr., G.K. Breeden, G. Bates, and S. McElroy. 2005. Hay crop and pasture weed management. University of Tennessee, UT Extension, Publication PB 1521-10M-6/05 (Rev). Available: https://extension.tennessee.edu/washington/Documents/hay_crop.pdf.
Rittenhour, T.M., M.D. Blum, and R.J. Goble. 2007. Fluvial evolution of the Lower Mississippi River Valley during the last 100 k.y. glacial cycle: Response to glaciation and sea-level change. Geological Society of America Bulletin 119: 586-608.
Saucier, R.T. 1994. Geomorphology and Quaternary geologic history of the Lower Mississippi Valley. Volumes I (report) and II (map folio). U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Shen, Z., T.E. Tornqvist, W.J. Autin, Z.R.P. Mateo, K.M. Straub, and B. Mauz. 2012. Rapid and widespread response of the Lower Mississippi River to eustatic forcing during the last glacial-interglacial cycle. Geological Society of America Bulletin 124: 690-704.
Smith, R.D. and C. Klimas. 2002. A regional guidebook for applying the hydrogeomorphic approach to assessing wetland functions of selected regional wetland subclasses, Yazoo Basin, Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Valley. ERDC/EL TR-02-4, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
Snipes, C.E., S.P. Nichols, D.H. Poston, T.W. Walker, L.P. Evans, and H.R. Robinson. 2005. Current agricultural practices of the Mississippi Delta. Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS. Bulletin 1143.
Stanturf, J.A., S.H. Schoenholtz, C.J. Schweitzer, and J.P. Shepard. 2001. Achieving restoration success: myths in bottomland hardwood forests. Restoration Ecology 9(2): 189-200.
Stevens, G. and H. Krusekopf. 2020. Delta soils of Southeast Missouri. Publication No. G9011. University of Missouri Extension, Columbia, MO. Available: https://extension.missouri.edu/publications/g9011 (Accessed: 21 February 2021).
[USACE] United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2017. The Mississippi Drainage Basin. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District Website. Available: https://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/Missions/Mississippi-River-Flood-Control/Mississippi-River-Tributaries/Mississippi-Drainage-Basin/ (Accessed: 2017).
[USDA-NRCS] United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006a. Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296.
[USDA-NRCS] United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006b. Soil Survey of Leflore County, Mississippi. 281 p. Available: https://archive.org/details/usda-soil-survey-of-leflore-county-mississippi (Accessed: 13 August 2018).
[USDA-NRCS] United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2022. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook 296.
[USDA-SCS] United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1959. Soil Survey of Sunflower County, Mississippi. Series 1952, No. 5. https://archive.org/details/usda-soil-association-map-soil-survey-of-sunflower-county-mississippi (Accessed: 31 January 2018).
[USDA-SCS] United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1968. Soil survey interpretations for woodlands in the Southern Mississippi Valley Alluvium area of Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri, and Kentucky. Progress Report W-5. Fort Worth, TX.
Walker, T.W., W.L. Kingery, J.E. Street, M.S. Cox, J.L. Oldham, P.D. Gerard, and F.X. Han. 2003. Rice yield and soil chemical properties as affected by precision land leveling in alluvial soils. Agronomy Journal 95: 1483-1488.
Wallace, D. personal communication. Forester (Retired), USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Columbia, MO.
Wiken, Ed, F.J. Nava, and G. Griffith. 2011. North American Terrestrial Ecoregions – Level III. Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Montreal, Canada.
Woods, A.J., T.L. Foti, S.S. Chapman, J.M. Omernik, J.A. Wise, E.O. Murray, W.L. Prior, J.B. Pagan, Jr., J.A. Comstock, and M. Radford. 2004. Ecoregions of Arkansas (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,000,000).
Woods, A.J., J.M. Omernik, W.H. Martin, G.J. Pond, W.M. Andrews, S.M. Call, J.A. Comstock, and D.D. Taylor. 2002. Ecoregions of Kentucky (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, VA., U.S. Geological Survey (map scale1:1,000,000).Contributors
Barry Hart
Rachel Stout Evans
Doug Wallace
Fred YoungApproval
Charles Stemmans, 6/10/2025
Acknowledgments
We are sincerely grateful to the MLRA 131A Technical Team for their assistance and input in the development of this report. Special recognition is owed to Tom Foti (Ecologist, Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, Retired) and Henry Langston (Wetland Ecologist, Arkansas Department of Transportation, Retired) for their time, personal travel expenses, and willingness to share their vast knowledge of the region. Their assistance with field reconnaissance, identifying sites and locations for investigating, and verifying ecological factors across multiple Mississippi River basins has led to a deeper understanding of the ecological sites and their associated states and community phases in the Southern Mississippi River Alluvium.
Rangeland health reference sheet
Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health is a qualitative assessment protocol used to determine ecosystem condition based on benchmark characteristics described in the Reference Sheet. A suite of 17 (or more) indicators are typically considered in an assessment. The ecological site(s) representative of an assessment location must be known prior to applying the protocol and must be verified based on soils and climate. Current plant community cannot be used to identify the ecological site.
Author(s)/participant(s) Contact for lead author Date 08/29/2026 Approved by Approval date Composition (Indicators 10 and 12) based on Annual Production Indicators
-
Number and extent of rills:
-
Presence of water flow patterns:
-
Number and height of erosional pedestals or terracettes:
-
Bare ground from Ecological Site Description or other studies (rock, litter, lichen, moss, plant canopy are not bare ground):
-
Number of gullies and erosion associated with gullies:
-
Extent of wind scoured, blowouts and/or depositional areas:
-
Amount of litter movement (describe size and distance expected to travel):
-
Soil surface (top few mm) resistance to erosion (stability values are averages - most sites will show a range of values):
-
Soil surface structure and SOM content (include type of structure and A-horizon color and thickness):
-
Effect of community phase composition (relative proportion of different functional groups) and spatial distribution on infiltration and runoff:
-
Presence and thickness of compaction layer (usually none; describe soil profile features which may be mistaken for compaction on this site):
-
Functional/Structural Groups (list in order of descending dominance by above-ground annual-production or live foliar cover using symbols: >>, >, = to indicate much greater than, greater than, and equal to):
Dominant:
Sub-dominant:
Other:
Additional:
-
Amount of plant mortality and decadence (include which functional groups are expected to show mortality or decadence):
-
Average percent litter cover (%) and depth ( in):
-
Expected annual annual-production (this is TOTAL above-ground annual-production, not just forage annual-production):
-
Potential invasive (including noxious) species (native and non-native). List species which BOTH characterize degraded states and have the potential to become a dominant or co-dominant species on the ecological site if their future establishment and growth is not actively controlled by management interventions. Species that become dominant for only one to several years (e.g., short-term response to drought or wildfire) are not invasive plants. Note that unlike other indicators, we are describing what is NOT expected in the reference state for the ecological site:
-
Perennial plant reproductive capability:
Print Options
Sections
Font
AAAAOther
PrintThe Ecosystem Dynamics Interpretive Tool is an information system framework developed by the USDA-ARS Jornada Experimental Range, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, and New Mexico State University.
Accessibility statement
